Though Greensburg’s City Council voted unanimously at its June 15 meeting to close the town’s municipal airport to facilitate the construction of an industrial park on the acreage, a local patron of the facility let the group know at its Monday meeting that he intended to have the last word on the matter.
Local auto dealer and owner of two hangars at the airport, Ron Shank, addressed the council via a prepared statement during the public comment portion of the meeting, saying at one point he was “shocked and saddened by council’s decision” to close the airport, as well as the manner in which the action was taken.
“I assumed how you closed it was legal, but it shouldn’t be,” Shank said at one point. He also complained no formal notice was given to him or other tenants of the airport as to the impending action. “You send notice before closing an alley, but didn’t do (the same) with tenants (who lease space) there,” Shank added.
Shank went on to say he’d talked on three occasions with City Administrator Steve Hewitt and said he’d maintained his presence at the airport when Hewitt assured him the airport wouldn’t be closed. He later clarified to The Signal that Hewitt told him “not long after the tornado” that the City had “no intention of closing (the airport).” He also told council Hewitt later told him “he’d keep a runway open.”
“I apologize if we had some miscommunication, but I meant keeping a runway open until the industrial park development was completed,” Hewitt responded. “We didn’t give public notice on this, but we did discuss this during at least two council meetings before we took action.”
Shank maintained he would have appreciated “a simple notification…so I could have come and been a part of the discussion.”
Councilman Brandon Hosheit was the first of three council members who apologized to Shank for his not having received clearer communication of the City’s intentions, Hosheit telling Shank, “I want to apologize up front because it was my understanding you and the other family (likely Tim Tyree, who uses the facility as a part of his agricultural spraying service) that use the airport were kept informed of this.”
Hosheit, however, is quoted in a June 19 Signal online story concerning the council’s June 15 decision to close the airport as having said at that meeting, “The two people I talked to that use the airport are in favor of this…so I see no reason to not go ahead and make it (closure of the airport) official.”
Asked Friday if he’d had any such conversation with Hosheit, Shank told The Signal, “What I’ve always said is that if it’s necessary to close the airport to bring in 30 to 40 jobs I’m not against closing it.” As for when he would have made such a comment to Hosheit, Shank said he remembers saying as much to Hosheit “and several people” in or around November of 2007.
With September 30 set as the official date upon which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will recognize the airport’s closure, Shank was told the council would look into the possibility of postponing effective closure until the City is ready to break ground for the industrial park meant to take its place. He asked for much more during his appearance Monday, saying at one point he would like the June 15 decision “to be revisited and reversed if possible.”
Hewitt, meanwhile, later told The Signal the City is “about ready to go to final design” on the industrial park and expects the project to “go to bid in three months.” That said, he added the current airport could continue being used through at least the end of the year, and “maybe even through January, when we should be getting close to a ground breaking for the park.”
(Look for a fuller version of this story in the September 16 Signal.)
|
|
|
Though Greensburg’s City Council voted unanimously at its June 15 meeting to close the town’s municipal airport to facilitate the construction of an industrial park on the acreage, a local patron of the facility let the group know at its Monday meeting that he intended to have the last word on the matter.
Local auto dealer and owner of two hangars at the airport, Ron Shank, addressed the council via a prepared statement during the public comment portion of the meeting, saying at one point he was “shocked and saddened by council’s decision” to close the airport, as well as the manner in which the action was taken.
“I assumed how you closed it was legal, but it shouldn’t be,” Shank said at one point. He also complained no formal notice was given to him or other tenants of the airport as to the impending action. “You send notice before closing an alley, but didn’t do (the same) with tenants (who lease space) there,” Shank added.
Shank went on to say he’d talked on three occasions with City Administrator Steve Hewitt and said he’d maintained his presence at the airport when Hewitt assured him the airport wouldn’t be closed. He later clarified to The Signal that Hewitt told him “not long after the tornado” that the City had “no intention of closing (the airport).” He also told council Hewitt later told him “he’d keep a runway open.”
“I apologize if we had some miscommunication, but I meant keeping a runway open until the industrial park development was completed,” Hewitt responded. “We didn’t give public notice on this, but we did discuss this during at least two council meetings before we took action.”
Shank maintained he would have appreciated “a simple notification…so I could have come and been a part of the discussion.”
Councilman Brandon Hosheit was the first of three council members who apologized to Shank for his not having received clearer communication of the City’s intentions, Hosheit telling Shank, “I want to apologize up front because it was my understanding you and the other family (likely Tim Tyree, who uses the facility as a part of his agricultural spraying service) that use the airport were kept informed of this.”
Hosheit, however, is quoted in a June 19 Signal online story concerning the council’s June 15 decision to close the airport as having said at that meeting, “The two people I talked to that use the airport are in favor of this…so I see no reason to not go ahead and make it (closure of the airport) official.”
Asked Friday if he’d had any such conversation with Hosheit, Shank told The Signal, “What I’ve always said is that if it’s necessary to close the airport to bring in 30 to 40 jobs I’m not against closing it.” As for when he would have made such a comment to Hosheit, Shank said he remembers saying as much to Hosheit “and several people” in or around November of 2007.
With September 30 set as the official date upon which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will recognize the airport’s closure, Shank was told the council would look into the possibility of postponing effective closure until the City is ready to break ground for the industrial park meant to take its place. He asked for much more during his appearance Monday, saying at one point he would like the June 15 decision “to be revisited and reversed if possible.”
Hewitt, meanwhile, later told The Signal the City is “about ready to go to final design” on the industrial park and expects the project to “go to bid in three months.” That said, he added the current airport could continue being used through at least the end of the year, and “maybe even through January, when we should be getting close to a ground breaking for the park.”
(Look for a fuller version of this story in the September 16 Signal.)
